add_eq

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool. It does add one useful fact not otherwise available: the call returns an object containing fx_index. But it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, whether an existing ReaEQ is replaced, or where in the chain the FX is inserted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded statements with no wasted words. The explicit 'Returns' line is valuable given there is no output schema, though the phrasing is terse and could be slightly more informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition is too thin. Disclosing the return object is a partial offset, but the agent still lacks the information needed to know when the call will succeed or what side effects to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter track_index is undocumented. The phrase 'to a track' only vaguely implies that track_index identifies the target track, adding essentially no meaning beyond the parameter name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Add ReaEQ to a track'), naming the specific plugin, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like add_compressor or add_limiter. However, it does not differentiate itself from track_fx_add_by_name or find_eq, which an agent might reasonably consider equivalent options.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the generic track_fx_add_by_name, nor any precondition stated (e.g., whether the track must already have an FX chain). Usage is only implied by the name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.